Vatican bans gays from seminaries

Once again, a church is divided over its attitude to homosexuality. This time it is the Roman Catholic Church, which has toughened its stand against gay men, insisting they cannot enter the seminary if they are sexually active or, if their homosexuality is 'transitory', unless they have been celibate for at least three years. The immediate question that comes to mind is, Why do this? The Church already has a celibacy rule. Although technically, to be celibate means to be 'unmarried', everyone knows that what it means in practice is that Catholic priests should not have sex, whether it be gay, straight or even Clintonian sex.

The Church is clearly trying to re-establish its credibility after the paedophile crisis. But surely the Vatican officials responsible for this document cannot be suggesting that all gays are paedophiles, or vice-versa. That would be the most terrible libel against an entire community.

Every Catholic knows that their Church has been served for centuries with faithfulness and holiness by homosexual priests, and if they haven't all kept their celibacy vow, then nor have their straight brothers. There has never been any research to suggest that gays were more frequent in the breaking, or that homosexual priests were more likely to become paedophiles.

The Anglican Church is no different. Again, some of the best parish priests in the Church of England and elsewhere in the communion are well-known by their congregations to be homosexual. A few are also known to be in relationships, but blind eyes are turned to this, as there is no celibacy rule in the Anglican Church.

Of course the Anglican church still disapproves of sex outside marriage. In England, the church has got itself as well into a veritable pickle with its own latest ruling on gay priests, who from next month will be able to regularise their partnerships in register offices. The bishops have told these 'married' clergy that they cannot under any circumstances have sex, and will discipline them if they do (will they put cameras in the bedrooms?) while presumably will continue to turn blind eyes to the 'unmarried' gay priests in their dioceses. Thus the Church of England is in the process of reintroducing a celibacy rule by the back door, so to speak.

So here we have two institutions getting their proverbials in a right old twist over whether homosexuals should or should not be having sex. Estimates of numbers of homosexuals in seminaries and parishes in the US vary from 25 to 50 per cent, according to a research review by Donald Cozzens, author of 'The Changing Face of the Priesthood'. A Church so short of vocations as the Catholic surely cannot afford to lose such a large proportion of its existing and future priests.

The document, from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, says the church deeply respects homosexuals. But it also says it 'cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.'

It says, 'Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies.

'If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon.'

This apparent distinction the Vatican is drawing, between supposed 'deep-seated' and 'transient' tendencies, is also one that is likely to draw a vast amount of adverse comment. The document reiterates the Church's traditional teaching that homosexual acts are 'grave sins' and also intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law.

The Boston Globe, a paper serving the area that has suffered some of the worst of the Catholic child sex abuse scandals, today quotes Thomas Plante, a psychologist who for more than 15 years has conducted evaluations of prospective seminarians for US dioceses and religious orders. Plante predicts the document will have an 'enormous' ripple effect on the future priesthood if it is followed. 'Sexual orientation in almost all the evaluations I've done over 15 years hasn't really mattered. Now what's coming out of the Vatican is that it matters in a big way. That's a real challenge because we think that there are many, many, many gay men who are fabulous priests.'

He questions how seminary directors would apply the new regulations, and suggested that many may resort to a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. The candidates too, may try to hide their sexual orientation because homosexuality is now a deal-breaker, says Plante, who is chairman of the psychology department at Santa Clara University in California.

Quest, the UK group for gay and lesbian Catholics, has also criticised it. 'The implication of the text is that by being in possession of "deep-seated homosexual tendencies", their priesthood is somehow second-rate and not to be valued. This in spite of the fact that gay men are hugely over-represented in Holy Orders compared to their numbers in society at large and thousands of them are living holy and chaste lives in service of the Gospel. We do not see that as a problem but as a gift.'

The gay equality organisation Stonewall was also critical. Ben Summerskill, chief executive, said, 'It's deeply said that the Vatican should be indulging in this offensive posturing. Expressions of prejudice by church leaders both abroad and in Britain validate the discrimination that gay people face on a daily basis. The death of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common in south London last month is the sort of thing that happens when homophobia of this sort goes unchallenged.'

The Catholic Church has observed with interest the Anglican squabblings over this issue. Before he became Pope, Joseph Ratzinger even sent a message of support to a meeting of US traditionalists objecting to the ordination of the gay bishop Gene Robinson. Now the new Pope, who has proved so refreshingly and surprisingly open-minded since his annointing, who has even had Hans Kung over to tea, is allowing his Church to be bogged down in the same mire that is coming close to destroying the Anglicans.

As long as it is not criminal, these church leaders should just leave God to be the judge of what grown men and women get up to in the bedroom. In trying to do what is right, and in trying to stand up for Biblical standards, they are in danger of damaging the Great Commission given the disciples by Jesus himself. The image this debate presents of the churches is not an attractive one, and in a time of growing secularisation and competing belief systems, it seems unlikely to make the Church's message appeal to those who need to hear it most. The answer surely has to be, as suggested here, a restoration of the concept of love to the centre of Church teaching and practice. Then we might get a little more forgiveness, and leave the judging to He who surely knows best what is truly right and wrong.

(nb link to article ref end comment, below)

Comments

[Ola Marki]

I don't understand how you can differentiate between gay and straight Roman Catholic priests if they're all supposed to remain celibate anyway. And how are priests who've had heterosexual sex without being married any better than 'gay' priests who've had homosexual sex? Sex out of marriage is supposed to be wrong according to the Catholic religion, so why should the type of people priests chose to have sex with have any meaning?

[Mike Homfray]

I see no good reason why any well-adjusted and contented gay man would wish to join the Roman priesthood in any case - indeed, it is shown beyond all doubt that it has an ability to attract the self-hating and twisted.

[Nicholas Finke]

I find the attitude taken by the authors of this latest document from Rome to be somewhat amazing. It should be noted that the document is not talking about the questions that are currently bedeviling Anglicans, i.e., the status of homosexual behavior. The document is talking about refusing ordination to perfectly chaste men who identify themselves as homosexual.

It appears that the Roman Church is attempting to show that it will not tolerate pedophile tendencies in its clergy. This is a laudable goal; the unfortunate thing is that it should be thought necessary. A better way to approach this problem might be education sessions for the hierarchy in a Christian approach to adult sexuality.

At a time when I have heard it estimated that 20% of all Catholic parishes in the United States lack a resident priest, one would think that the hierarchy would be trying to think of ways to attract new candidates for ordination rather than trying to discourage some of the perfectly acceptable ones that they already have.

[Ed Turner]

To reply to Georgie, Church teaching is there to protect us from our own sinfulness which, if we continue to sin, will lead us to disaster and ruin. Church teaching isn't therefore intolerant or bigoted but supremely loving and benevolent. In our highly sexualised culture in which sex is ever more separated from its God-given purpose, the Church's wisdom in our personal lives could not be more valuable. If you happen to be homosexual, you are accepted and welcome in the Church, as every sinner like me is, because that's why the Church is there, to save us from our sins.

[Julie M. , Belgium]

As a gay woman and a catholic, I had always hope to see the Church, if not evolving towards more liberals views, at least realizing that homosexuality is not some kind of disease that can be cured.

Today, I have lost hope, and can no longer call myself a catholic.

[Brian McKinlay]

In the following quotation, I am assuming that the leaked version of the Congregation for Catholic Education's Instruction and Mr Robert Micken's translation are accurate.

"[T]he Church . . . cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture. Such people, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women."

This statement is appallingly offensive. It is beyond belief that a credible institution could say such a thing. I leave aside the question as to what is meant by 'gay culture'. The Instruction seems to say that no gay man (or woman?) is capable of "properly relating" to any other person. Or rather that their gayness "seriously obstructs" them from such relationships.

I am a gay man. Am I not capable of love and caring relationship with my siblings or father? What was I doing when I visited the bedside of my mother as her life was approaching its end, and prayed with her? Was I not properly relating to my niece when I cared for her as a small child? How was it possible for me to listen and talk with my best friend as he considered marriage to another dear friend? (I was best man at the wedding.) And have I not had love and "proper relationship" with my partner, as we have shared all that we have and all that we are for almost a decade? If Benedict XVI has indeed sanctioned these words, he no longer has a shred of credibility.

[georgie]

I'm apalled by some of these comments. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality but he said plenty about intolerance.
If homosexual people have "suicidal tendencies" ( a very dubious claim) it's probably most likely down to being bullied and victimised by bigots. To those who say homosexuality isn't normal behaviour, well, maybe not normal to them but it certainly is to me and millions of others. I doubt whether the majority of people would find such intolerant attitudes and views "normal".

[Christine Miles]

"In trying to do what is right, and in trying to stand up for Biblical standards, they are in danger of damaging the Great Commission given the disciples by Jesus himself."
As a practising Christian I find this statement just a little contradictory. What would you say the Great Commission was? It's not necessarily to make the Church look appealing to a secular world.

[Mrs. Lawrence]

Nice try Ms Gledhill. The Vatican is not bogged down with homosexuality. Like it or not, is simply reiterating the stance it adopted in 1960 that was willfully ignored by those whose duty was to obey it.

This document is a breath of fresh air. It is unfortuanate for you as a religion correspondent to be unable to see it that way especially after what the acceptance of the active homosexual lifestyle into the clergy has done to your own Communion.

[CGSM]

Christianity is a very conservative religion in moral issues and Pope Benedict XVI still continues to be Cardinal Ratzinger, inflexible in doctrine and a great specialist in Dogmatics and mainly Eclesiology.

I was born Catholic but soon realized - when I was still a child - I couldn't remain in that denomination. I do respect the hierarchy and the doctrines but don't agree with them.

I know what it is to be a homosexual trying to live within conservative moral frames. I'm a closet case lesbian and it's not Church's ban that will change my sexual drive. I'm lesbian not because I want to be but simply because my first sexual drive is for a same-sex person. I've been alone for a long time. Nonetheless I'm still aroused, at least in my dreams, exclusively by women.

If someone isn't comfortable with the Roman Catholic Church tenets just leave it, don't try to change the rules. They are right as well as we homosexuals are.

[Ed Turner]

The very reason why the Anglican Communion is about to disintegrate is precisely because they have not firmly upheld 2000 years of Church teaching on human sexuality. Humankind hasn't anthropologically changed - homosexuality is not normal behaviour and never has been. In fact, studies show that homosexuals have more severe psychological troubles than heterosexuals and are more likely to have suicidal tendencies. It's always been a disorder borne, as the document implies, of emotional immaturity and arrested development. That being so, homosexuals cannot be fit to be priests. And, what the press won't report, is that it calls on all Catholics to treat homosexuals with respect and sensitivity. Homosexual laity are actually more welcome in the Church than ever because they are need of compassion and healing. The Vatican instruction is, truly, a masterpiece of reason.

[Paul Keane]

Re: The Catholic Church’s stance on Homosexual Priests:

You begin your article with linking this statement to the paedophile crisis, and end wih reference to the “Anglican squabblings over this issue”. I find it interesting that you immediately assumed this statement was in response to the former, rather than the latter. Do you have a private interest in pointing readers in that direction?

Secondly, I find it interesting that a Religious Affairs Correspondent would not look at this issue from a more biblical perspective than a social one. A gardening correspondent, he might have brought this much to the debate!

My favorite statement was: “In trying to do what is right, and in trying to stand up for Biblical standards, they are in danger of damaging the Great Commission given by Jesus himself”. I must admit to having a good laugh about that one: Are you seriously proposing that the Great Commission would be better served by abandoning what is right, and by deserting Biblical standards?

[Lilllie Palmer]

This is nothing new. Why is it making news? Seems we Catholics have to reiterate Church teachings over and over. One either abides by church-law or doesn't. The Catholic Church isn't a social club to be swayed by cultural whims and fancy.

[Alistair McBay]

The Catholic Church may also need to install cameras in the bedrooms of heterosexuals, if a pending US lawsuit is successful.

In the US, an unmarried female teacher at a Catholic school has been sacked after she became pregnant, a rather obvious sign that she has engaged in sex outside marriage. See the link, 'article' at the bottom of the post above.

The teacher now intends to sue, but the school says it had no choice but to follow the principles contained in the teachers' personnel handbook.

However, as the female teacher's attorney points out, how does the school determine if its male employees engage in premarital sex?!

The church is has an extremely unhealthy obsession with what goes on in adult bedrooms, regardless of the sexual orientation involved. Would that it had been equally obsessed with what countless numbers of its priests worldwide have been doing with innocent young boys these last fifty years.